[3e] Do You Actually Play Non-Casters?

[Tequila Sunrise]

One of the great things about 3e is that it lets you make just about any kind of [anti]hero you want. If you want to kill bad guys with tea cups, there's a build for that. If you want to do that while bouncing around like Tigger in an anime on crack, there's a build for that too.

But most posters here know that non-casters are limited from the get-go, at least compared to full casters. So I'm curious; do you, as a player who knows about the class tiers and a bit about optimization, actually play non-casters or non-high tier PCs? Or do you leave the lower tier classes for the casual players who just want to roll the d20 and a damage die? And, whatever your answer may be, why?

[Soranar]

Rule of fun mostly

Not being able to curbstomp every encounter, actually being afraid of death is why the game is fun for me.

It's like comparing superman and spider-man: a bus is a legitimate threat to spider-man (or a gun, or a knife , or nearly anything really) while superman requires plots created specifically to counter him.

[Kyrthain]

I'm somewhat of an optimizer, but I never play casters. The reason is, I'm really stingy with my per-day resources, so instead of rocking out as a wizard, I'd be a sucky archer most of the day, and then when it was clear that we'd hit the boss fight, I'd unload. Because of that, I like martial classes, especially TOB, and warlocks, binders and the like a lot better.

[Kish]

Yes, I sometimes play non-casters. Worrying about "theoretical optimization" is excellent advice for not having fun.

[2xMachina]

Well, I can be called a powergamer/optimizer.

I usually do Tier 3. Tier 2 sometimes. Tier 1 is very rare (mostly because casters are a lot of work).

[Lord Loss]

I have never played a non- DN caster. I usually play rogues, rangers and sometimes Barbarians.

[KillianHawkeye]

I play more noncasters than casters, mostly because spell management can be pretty tedious if you don't want to always use the same spells. Also, I thoroughly enjoy hitting things with sticks and being the guy in danger of being stomped on. Casters can be fun sometimes, too.

[Yuki Akuma]

I play ToB characters and Binders all the time.

[Sucrose]

One of the great things about 3e is that it lets you make just about any kind of [anti]hero you want. If you want to kill bad guys with tea cups, there's a build for that. If you want to do that while bouncing around like Tigger in an anime on crack, there's a build for that too.

But most posters here know that non-casters are limited from the get-go, at least compared to full casters. So I'm curious; do you, as a player who knows about the class tiers and a bit about optimization, actually play non-casters or non-high tier PCs? Or do you leave the lower tier classes for the casual players who just want to roll the d20 and a damage die? And, whatever your answer may be, why?

I play far more noncasters than casters, because, frankly, I like the aesthetic of 'I hits the peoples and makes them fall down.' Hitting someone with a sword is inherently more awesome to me than blasting them with magic, or putting them to sleep, or whatever.

Also, I dislike the bookkeeping necessary to play a prepared caster properly, and don't like having Charisma as my primary stat (thus removing the option of most spontaneous casters). However, I also dislike just having a set number of feats, and the same options every round. I particularly like the Warblade for this, because, to me, it strikes the perfect balance of having resources to expend, and keeping things simple. The other ToB character classes are also useful.

[Kurald Galain]

Although I prefer casters, I would certainly play (and have played) a rogue. Possibly a ranger, too, maybe a barbarian. It's just fighters and monks that are so bland, imho.

I've never played with a DM who allowed TOB, so I can't comment on that.

[Dragon Elite]

I play rogues, and fighters occasionally.

[The Rose Dragon]

I mostly play Anima Mages without the early entry cheats. So, not usually, but I don't play characters who are casters all the way.

[Volthawk]

Yeah, I do. Thinking about it, I do generally lean towards the casterish stuff, but I do enjoy non-casters, especially as you can go for some funny concepts. Like kobold barbarians.

[awa]

I love rangers rarely straight ranger but all my recent characters have had at least a couple ranger levels.

[Shpadoinkle]

Yes, I do. My favorite are melee warriors. Yes, I know they suck. I don't really care. I have more fun with them.

[CockroachTeaParty]

I prefer casters to non-casters, heavily favoring psions and wizards. I also like me a beguiler from time to time. I'm starting to get into divine casters, but prefer arcane and psionic more.

If I'm going to play a non-caster, I usually bust out Tome of Battle or Incarnum.

[Zen Master]

I play melee almost exclusively. Not carrying a big weapon, not going toe-to-toe with the enemy - that just feels unfun to me. I really like being the guy the others have to keep going, because I both give and take a whole lot of damage.

Luckily, no one I play with goes batman much. It has yet to happen that melee isn't powerful.

[Morph Bark]

My only character to die in a non-awesome non-funny way was the only full caster I have ever played. Sure, he had a lot of options, but it was a chore to keep up with the spells known and per day and which one to use on a particular day, so I ended up with a few crowd control, a few utility, a few buff, but still mainly blasting spells since I wasn't aware of a lot of things about casters back then.

Heck, the only other character to die in that campaign got mauled and eaten by a massive shark, whilst my character just got knocked down by a Nycaloth. Since then I decided to play characters that have bigger chances of awesome deaths, but if I were to play in a larger party, I'd probably play a caster again, since more bases would be already covered.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

So I'm curious; do you, as a player who knows about the class tiers and a bit about optimization, actually play non-casters or non-high tier PCs?

I ususally do, yes. Namely because my favorite class is one of those.

[Bharg]

Why play a non-caster if they just can't do as much stuff as a caster?

[Volthawk]

Why play a non-caster if they just can't do as much stuff as a caster?

It's not about being the best or doing the most. It's about enjoying yourself, and if that enjoyment comes in playing a non-caster for people, then that's a valid reason. Same with people who prefer casters.

[mrcarter11]

I know a fair bit about optimizing, and I've never played a full caster.. Seems like it would be boring, which is the anti-point of playing dnd. I like binders and swordsages.. And, since you ask us, I am curious as to the OP's stance towards playing a full caster or not. By his wording, I'm gonna guess he only plays full casters, but still curious.

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

I prefer to play the 'stabby face' melee character. If I were ever to play a full caster as per "the batman wizard", I would get bored after the 4th grease spell, or the 'oh Gods I failed an SR check' and the 'oh i cast fly to scurry my 45HP arse outta combat'. That to me is so boring, it borders on tears.

However, this does come from experience. I played an actual cleric/necromancer/mystic theurge (yes, I heard the collective groan) for about a dozen meetings. All the paperwork, extra research, and book keeping just annoyed me. Near the end I was not having fun whatsoever, so the character took his fire giant skeleton and left the party to "find his fathers grave".

On the flip-side of that, I played a fey sorcerer/stormcaster and she was a ton of fun. In the beginning, she had a lot of good spells that were geared towards crowd control, and protection. eventually though, I had her learn some spells that were more melee oriented; such as Thunderlance (Sp. Comp.) and some of the generic shapechange stuff so that I can get into something's face and shred it. Eventually she did go epic; and at level 22 she started taking Swordsage levels. I don't care much for epic spellcasting.

[Kylarra]

I've only played a noncaster once, although I really want to play a DFA in a group at some point, though I guess it would technically be a "caster"?

[Pablo Sheraton]

I love to play Druid, but I play them because they are both spellcasters and RAWRNOFACE4U!!1! I also like gishes, for this reason. If I had to make a choice between a full caster casting as a caster, or a barbarian, I'd take Hulk any day.

[Optimystik]

I only like melee that can "do things." Binders for instance, or Psychic Warriors, or Pyrokineticists, or Tattooed Monks. Anything besides "I attack" and "I full attack."

I know that I'd love ToB (Especially Setting Sun and Diamond Mind) but I haven't gotten around to actually playing one of their classes yet, despite having the book for awhile now.

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

I like gish builds. . .i'll somtimes play a sorcerer, but I usually handicap them greatly by playing the battle sorcerer variant. . . had a great scout/dervish build once.

[thompur]

I mainly played Fighters and Rogues, and occasionally Bards, because I hated the resource management required by full casters. Then came the Warlock! This became my favorite class very quickly. Then I got Tome of Magic and fell in love with the Binder class. At first, Tome of Battle was iffy. Then I played a Warblade! Aawwssoommee!

[Jarveiyan]

I like playing archers mainly, and sometimes melee non-casters when I don't play a caster. It's because when I'm not in the mood to play a caster I want to play a character that hits creatures and kill them using hit point damage. I gain satisfaction from doing harm to monsters, which is why even if I'm playing a caster I have at least a few damaging spells(evocation on average). I usually reach for rangers or fighters when playing martial characters, or psychic warriors/pyrokineticist.

[Felyndiira]

I only like melee that can "do things." Binders for instance, or Psychic Warriors, or Pyrokineticists, or Tattooed Monks. Anything besides "I attack" and "I full attack."

I know that I'd love ToB (Especially Setting Sun and Diamond Mind) but I haven't gotten around to actually playing one of their classes yet, despite having the book for awhile now.

This.

I do like melee with options, although most fighters and rogues are one-trick ponies both inside and outside of battle. I'd be perfectly willing to play a factotum (granted, they're sorta casters, but meh), ToB classes, binders, and those classes with some bit of battlefield control or utility regardless of tier.

I won't ever play a straight-out-of-the-book fighter, though. I might be willing if Martial Study/Stance is allowed, although they still have too few options in battle (I'd probably just end up spamming white raven tactics a few times before going back to leap power attack, though, so it's not an improvement).

This, of course, is contingent on how much of the roleplay is combat and how much is actual roleplaying, and on the interests of the other players. I am perfectly and fully willing to play a fallen paladin, non-blackguard on RP-focused games with tolerant party members.